But while he can generate the buzz, Putin still better be investing wisely as he finishes out his days at the Kremlin. Sullivan says Putin won't be paid for his ditty.

Of course, not all the reviews were favorable. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told CNN that after reading Putin's prose, "I almost wanted to vomit." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a big fan of hitting Syria in a major way, was so upset that he took to Twitter to tweet: "Putin's NYT op-ed is an insult to the intelligence of every American."

It's easy to see why people would be put off being lectured about the evils of intervention by someone so accomplished at brutally squashing foes in such venues as Chechnya and Georgia.

In addition to telling us not to be so bellicose, Putin rejected the idea of American exceptionalism and said that he thought it was the Syrian rebels, not the forces of Bashar Assad, who were guilty of using chemical weapons.

The Russian scribe was not without his fans. Fox News analyst and veteran presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who bats right, was almost giddy about the article. "I read it twice,and, candidly, it was an outstanding piece," Buchanan gushed.

Comparing the Russian leader favorably to President Obama, Buchanan said, "Frankly, in the last week, Vladimir Putin has looked like a statesman,"

Obama and Putin have had a frosty relationship, but the scribe may have done the constitutional lawyer a big favor by getting him out of a very tricky position, at least temporarily. Until Putin made his suggestion that Syria might just put those chemical weapons under international control, Obama was on the verge of a humiliating defeat at the hands of Congress over his request for approval to strike Syria.

Predictably, the Times took some heat for publishing Putin, whose piece was proffered to the paper by the New York public relations firm Ketchum. (And purportedly there were no ghostwriters; The company told BuzzFeed Putin knocked out the piece himself.) "It looks like those pro-Assad Syrians didn't need to hack the New York Times website after all," National Review columnist Charles C.W. Cooke tweeted. "They could have just asked nicely."

And Times Public Editor Sullivan said she heard from some readers who were appalled that the nation's leading news organization would offer such prime real estate to the Russkie. She quoted one reader who said he was "horrified," adding that the Times was "aiding and abetting a long-term foe of the United States."

Actually, it turns out Putin is no rookie at the writing game. Gawker took to Google and Nexis to discover that the Russian leader has written for a wide variety of publications, not all of them card-carrying members of the dreaded liberal media. Putin's platforms have included The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, both known for their right-leaning editorial outlooks.

Both Rosenthal and Sullivan said the Times was right to publish Putin, and I agree. Op-ed pages are meant to showcase a wide variety of opinions, to foster robust discussion, not just to preach to the converted.

Whatever you thought of the message, having a real-time piece by a world figure playing a pivotal role in such a fraught situation was a coup.